U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

89–814PDF 2014

THE ISIS THREAT: WEIGHING THE OBAMA

ADMINISTRATION’S RESPONSE

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

SEPTEMBER 18, 2014

Serial No. 113–219

Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/ or

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/

(II)

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

EDWARD R. ROYCE, California, Chairman 

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey 

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

JOE WILSON, South Carolina 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

TED POE, Texas 

MATT SALMON, Arizona 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania 

JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina 

ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

TOM COTTON, Arkansas 

PAUL COOK, California 

GEORGE HOLDING, North Carolina 

RANDY K. WEBER SR., Texas 

SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania 

STEVE STOCKMAN, Texas 

RON DESANTIS, Florida 

DOUG COLLINS, Georgia 

MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina 

TED S. YOHO, Florida 

SEAN DUFFY, Wisconsin 

CURT CLAWSON, Florida 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American 

Samoa 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia 

THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida 

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York 

KAREN BASS, California 

WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts 

DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island 

ALAN GRAYSON, Florida 

JUAN VARGAS, California 

BRADLEY S. SCHNEIDER, Illinois 

JOSEPH P. KENNEDY III, Massachusetts 

AMI BERA, California 

ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, California 

GRACE MENG, New York 

LOIS FRANKEL, Florida 

TULSI GABBARD, Hawaii 

JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas

AMY PORTER, Chief of Staff THOMAS SHEEHY, Staff Director

JASON STEINBAUM, Democratic Staff Director 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page

WITNESS 

The Honorable John F. Kerry, Secretary of State, U.S. Department of State ... 4

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING 

The Honorable John F. Kerry: Prepared statement ............................................. 9

APPENDIX 

Hearing notice .......................................................................................................... 44

Hearing minutes ...................................................................................................... 45

The Honorable Eliot L. Engel, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of New York: Material submitted for the record ............................................... 47

The Honorable Gerald E. Connolly, a Representative in Congress from the 

Commonwealth of Virginia: Prepared statement .............................................. 48

Written responses from the Honorable John F. Kerry to questions submitted 

for the record by the Honorable Alan S. Lowenthal, a Representative in 

Congress from the State of California ................................................................ 50

(1)

THE ISIS THREAT: WEIGHING THE OBAMA 

ADMINISTRATION’S RESPONSE 

THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 18, 2014

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS,

Washington, DC. 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 11:34 a.m. in room 

2171, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Ed Royce (chairman of 

the committee) presiding. 

Chairman ROYCE. This hearing will come to order. 

This morning we welcome Secretary Kerry back to the committee 

to weigh the administration’s response to the ISIL threat, and a 

threat it is. 

Never has a terrorist organization occupied such a sanctuary. 

Never has such a terrorist organization had the access to the abundant natural resources that ISIL has at its disposal. Never has a 

terrorist organization possessed the heavy weaponry or the cash or 

the personnel that ISIL has today. And its brutality, of course, is 

unmatched. 

This committee, on a bipartisan basis, has been pushing the administration to confront this threat. For months I pressed the administration for drone strikes, as the terrorists columns advanced 

on Iraqi cities. That is what the Iraqis wanted, and it is what many 

in our Embassy in Baghdad wanted. Ranking Member Engel has 

been pushing to arm the Free Syrian Army. That is what the President’s entire national security team wanted, including General 

David Petraeus, who headed the CIA at the time and frankly, the 

White House hesitancy on this has put us in a situation where 

ISIL has gained a lot of ground. 

But where we are today is we, I think agree on the steps that 

will turn the tables, turn the table on ISIL. Pushing Maliki to the 

side to give Iraqis a chance at representative government is one of 

the issues of Secretary of State has worked on. Aid to our allies 

from the air and I should say here we saw 116,000 air strikes during the opening days of the first Gulf War, when Kuwait was occupied. 

We need a robust response from the air, giving the Kurdish 

Peshmerga and many Iraqi units the backing they need to confront 

ISIL and using other elements against this wretched terrorist 

group. Not just the Free Syrian Army, but we recall the Sunni 

Awakening, when they rose up against al-Qaeda, and the fact that 

that strategy worked against al-Qaeda, it can work against ISIL. 

2

We have here an organization on the ground, a jihadist group 

that frankly has carried out massacres of Christians, Yazidis, Shia, 

Sunnis, beheading two American journalists, enslaving minority 

women, turning them into concubines, frankly, a jihadist group 

that demands the international community come together to suppress and defeat it. 

And it is good that we have finally acknowledged that we do 

have a partner on the ground in Aleppo, Syria, just not one that 

is adequately trained and adequately supplied to take on the formidable ISIL and Hezbollah-backed regime in Damascus. But ISIL 

has to be attacked in Syria. It has to be attacked in Syria because 

the sanctuary, the base of operations, base of training is on the 

Syrian side of that border, and to defeat a terrorist group you have 

got to go after their sanctuary. And as we hit them from the air, 

there has to be engagement of the ISIL forces on the ground that 

are already attacking Aleppo. Yesterday’s House vote was a first 

step, and we trust that you will be in close touch with the committee, Mr. Secretary, as you get this training program off the 

ground. So it is us in the air, it is the local Kurdish and Arab units 

providing the combat troops on the ground, maintaining the momentum against ISIS to defeat it. 

And the administration is right to get as many others in the region and from around the world to step up. This isn’t just our fight. 

The Secretary is just returning from a trip to the region, and has 

been talking with other Nations, some who will contribute cash, 

others intelligence or military support. But we would like to hear 

more about the pledges of support. Just who will be bringing what 

to the table? How firm is their resolve? And while we are aware 

of the plight of those Turkish diplomats that are being held captive, the bottom line still is that Turkey is a NATO ally, and it is 

not pulling its weight. And that has to change. 

Of course not all in the region will play a constructive role. Qatar 

comes to mind. And the committee certainly doesn’t see Iran’s regime doing anything other than what it has done for the last 30 

years, bringing destruction to the region through their machinations. 

We look forward to meeting with General Allen, who you just appointed, Mr. Secretary, as the Special Envoy for the global coalition 

to counter ISIL, to discuss these and other issues. 

The ISIL threat is a dramatic wakeup call. While some claim 

that the threats to the United States were receding, the reality is 

that a tidal wave of militancy is cresting here. Unfortunately, a lot 

of the recruitment occurs through the Internet. 

And the good news is that the President has now acknowledged 

that this threat must be confronted. We must have a sustained 

commitment that only the Commander in Chief can marshal. This 

hearing will be one of many to evaluate the administration’s resolve and strategy to defeat this threat. 

And I will now turn to our ranking member, Mr. Elliott Engel, 

of New York, for his opening comments. 

Mr. ENGEL. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Chairman, the decisions we now face are decisions of life and 

death. The course we set in the next several weeks and months will 

3

have ramifications around the world for years to come. And this 

situation demands that we set party politics aside. 

Mr. Chairman, we are grateful, as always, for your even, bipartisan leadership, and I want to identify myself with your remarks. 

Mr. Secretary, thank you for coming before us today, and thank 

you for your decades of tireless service to our country, for your 

work during uncertain and dangerous times. 

Congratulations to you and the administration for asking for a 

vote and winning the vote in the House yesterday to aid and train 

Syrian rebels. But Mr. Secretary, in my view the step the House 

took yesterday was long overdue. Over 11⁄2 years ago I introduced 

the Free Syria Act, which would have armed and trained vetted 

members of the opposition at that point. We can’t know what would 

have happened if we had acted then, but we do know that since 

then tens of thousands of men, women, and children have lost their 

lives, millions have been driven from their homes, and ISIS has 

grown and spilled across the Iraqi border, leaving behind a trail of 

destruction and bloodshed. 

Now that we are on the verge of training and equipping moderate Syrians, this must be considered only a first step to address 

a far-reaching threat. A vast stretch of land in Syria and Iraq is 

now in the crushing grip of ISIS. Left to fester, ISIS terrorists 

would rule the cradle of civilization with a brand of barbarism out 

of history’s darkest chapters, and offer safe haven to those who 

share their hateful and false ideology. 

Whether ISIS or al-Qaeda, Hamas or Hezbollah, terrorists thrive 

in ungoverned spaces and spread their lies and hatred. We have 

seen this before. In Afghanistan, after the Russians were driven 

out with American help, the Taliban planted their flag, and alQaeda found a safe place to plan attacks against our country, including September 11, 2001, against my city. Make no mistake, if 

we don’t act it will happen again. So today I hope we can explore 

the way we move forward from here. There are a few points I think 

are especially important. 

First, building a credible international coalition. It is critical that 

our partners in the region play a leading role combating ISIS. But 

the entire international community has a stake in this effort. Thousands of foreign fighters from dozens of countries have poured into 

Syria to join ISIS. And these battle-hardened extremists could 

launch attacks when they return home. I look forward to hearing 

about your progress with leaders in the Middle East and Europe 

in addressing the foreign fighter issue, and building an international coalition to degrade and destroy ISIS. 

Secondly, how do we address all aspects of the conflict? The border between Syria and Iraq is gone. We are now dealing with a single theater. I believe Congress has a responsibility to consider a 

new AUMF, authorization for the use of military force, that is specifically tailored to the current situation. 

Next, how do we ensure that our support of the moderate Syrian 

opposition isn’t just limited to combating ISIS? The Assad regime 

continues to torture and murder its own citizens. We cannot lose 

sight of the fact that Assad must go. He is a magnet for extremists 

and foreign fighters and this crisis will not end as long as he remains in power. I believe that this train and equip program is the 

4

best chance we have to bring about a negotiated political solution 

in Syria. Empowering the moderate opposition is the only way to 

compel Assad to the negotiating table. 

Make no mistake, there is no military solution to this crisis. How 

can we shape an environment that is conducive to bringing the parties to the table and moving toward a negotiated solution? Mr. Secretary, you know better than anybody we are out of good choices. 

There are no good choices in Iraq and Syria. No one in this country 

or this Congress wants to be dragged into another open-ended war. 

But I fear now, of all the bad choices, the worst choice would be 

to do nothing. That is why I am glad that the House did the right 

thing yesterday in the vote. 

As the President said last week, we will hunt down terrorists 

who threaten our country wherever they are. We need to do this, 

and we need to do it right. 

So I thank you again, Mr. Chairman. 

And Mr. Secretary, I look forward to your testimony. 

Chairman ROYCE. And, Mr. Secretary, welcome back. 

All of the members here are pleased to be joined by Mr. John 

Kerry, 68th Secretary of State of the United States. And without 

objection, I will add that the witness’s full prepared statement will 

be part of the record. 

Members here will have 5 calendar days to submit any statements or questions or extraneous material that they want to put 

in the record. 

Chairman ROYCE. Mr. Secretary. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JOHN F. KERRY, 

SECRETARY OF STATE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

Secretary KERRY. Well thank you very much, Chairman Royce, 

Ranking Member Engel, all the members of the committee. It is my 

privilege to be here today. I am glad to have this opportunity. 

Let me begin by both congratulating you and thanking you for 

the vote that took place yesterday. We are enormously appreciative, because stepping up the efforts with respect to the moderate opposition is an essential piece of any strategy against ISIL. 

And I will go into that a little bit in a moment. 

I know the chairman knows I have a hard stop on this because 

I have to be at the White House for a meeting with President 

Poroshenko. So I will try to really abbreviate, and I will try to keep 

my answers short. But I also want to make sure I answer your 

questions sufficiently. 

You know, for more than 10 years Iraq has been a source of debate and some disagreement, obviously, up on the Hill, and in the 

country. I think we waste time today if we focus on rehashing past 

debates when the issue that confronts us is really straightforward 

and one on which we ought to all agree. ISIL has to be defeated, 

plain and simple, end of story. Has to be. And collectively, I think 

every single one of us is going to be measured by what we do in 

order to guarantee that that happens. 

And the same is true on the international level. Even in a region 

that has been virtually defined by division over these past years, 

leaders who couldn’t find any agreement for 11 years, and who 

5

agree on very little in general, are all in agreement that ISIL has 

to be defeated. 

We have been focused on ISIL, I will tell you, since it morphed 

into al-Qaeda in Iraq in 2013 and picked up AQI’s mission under 

a different banner. And obviously, prior to that we were focused on 

it in the full context of what we were doing with respect to alQaeda. 

In January, we ramped up our assistance to the Iraqi Security 

Forces, increasing our intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance, 

ISR, and flights, to get a better picture of the battlefield and in 

order to expedite weapons like the Hellfire missiles for the Iraqis 

so that they could bring those to bear in the fight. Early this summer the ISIL threat accelerated when it effectively obliterated the 

Iraq-Syria border and the Mosul dam fell. 

And there are complicated reasons for why that happened. It is 

not just a straightforward, you know, they ran over them deal. It 

has to do with the kind of army that Prime Minister Maliki began 

to create. It has to do with Shia and Sunni. It has to do with a 

lot of other ingredients. 

But as a result of that, we further surged our ISR missions immediately over Iraq. We immediately set up joint operation centers 

in Baghdad and Irbil. And our Special Forces immediately conducted a very detailed assessment of the Iraqi Security Forces, because we needed to know, in order to be able to answer your questions and the questions of the American people, what might we be 

getting into here? Do we have an Iraqi Army that is capable of 

fighting? To what degree? What will it take to reconstitute it? So 

whatever judgments are coming to you now are coming to you as 

a consequence of that assessment. 

And in addition to that, I am proud to say that thanks to American engagement, ISIL’s movement, which was rapid at that point 

in time, and perilous, was stopped. Together with the Peshmerga 

and the brave, courageous souls, the Kurds who stood up, we were 

able not only to stop them there, but to liberate Amerli, which had 

been under siege, to liberate Sinjar Mountain, to begin to bring our 

efforts to bear on Haditha dam, and to make a difference. 

By the time ISIL had launched its offensive in the north, President Obama began air strikes, to begin with on the humanitarian 

basis to protect American personnel and prevent major catastrophes, such as the fall of Haditha dam or the maintenance of the 

Mosul dam, and also to bolster the Iraqi Security Forces and the 

Kurdish forces. 

To date, we have launched more than 150 air strikes. I know 

that sounds like that is very few compared to the 16,000 that was 

mentioned earlier. But it is a different deal right now, because I 

believe we rightfully, absolutely needed to get in place a structured, clear, Iraqi-chosen, Iraqi effort that provided a government 

with which we could work going forward. If you didn’t have a government with which you could work going forward, nothing that we 

tried to do would have had the impact necessary. 

So, you know, the platforms we put in place last June have enabled us to be able to do what we have done now and there is absolute clarity to the fact that we have blunted ISIL’s momentum, created the time and space to be able to put together a comprehensive 

6

strategy, get the inclusive government, and build the broad coalition. And that is the way we ought to go at this. 

We have redoubled our efforts to move the Iraqi political process 

forward. We are clear-eyed about the fact that any strategy against 

ISIL is only going to succeed if it has this strong and inclusive government in Iraq. I hope you noticed the photograph on the front 

page of the Wall Street Journal 2 days ago that showed Prince 

Saud al-Faisal, the foreign minister of Saudi Arabia, arm in arm 

with the Kurdish President of Iraq and with the Shia foreign minister of Iraq. They all came together in Jeddah. 

And that is why I went to Baghdad last week, to meet with this 

new Iraqi Government and make certain of what they were willing 

to do and were committing to us, and encourage them to discuss 

in detail their commitment against ISIL, and especially their commitment to unify the country and do the things that haven’t been 

done for these 8 years or more. 

What happened in Jeddah was literally historic in terms of the 

recent history of Iraq and the conflicts of that region. Iraq is now 

no longer isolated from its neighbors. Last week, the Iraqis weren’t 

just invited to come to Jeddah, but they were warmly received by 

the Saudis and by the rest of the countries there and the Saudis 

announced in that meeting that they will reopen an Embassy in 

Baghdad. That is a big deal. And it is essential. 

President Obama outlined the broader strategy in detail the 

other day. I am not going to go through it all. But I just quickly 

highlight it because it is important to continually remember this is 

not just an American effort, number one. And number two, it is not 

just military, not just kinetic even within the military. It is critical 

that, you know, we all understand how complicated it is precisely 

because we are not just focused on taking out the enemy out on the 

battlefield, but we have to take out an entire network. 

I don’t know how many of you saw it, but the Australians today 

arrested a large group of people that they suspected of being ISIL 

members, supporters, sympathizers in Australia who were planning some kind of extravaganza of brutality in Australia. So we 

have to decimate and discredit a militant cult masquerading as a 

religious movement and claiming, with no legitimacy whatsoever, 

to be a state. 

And there are similarities to what we have been doing with alQaeda these last years, but frankly it is different for some of the 

reasons that Chairman Royce pointed out. These folks have now 

taken over territory in ways that al-Qaeda never did. They have access to money in ways that al-Qaeda never did. They have access 

to weapons that they captured from Iraqis. And they are holding 

that territory and beginning to try to build a capacity for sustainability that challenges everybody. 

So certainly military support is going to be one component of 

this. And I sit here today, while I can’t go into all of the details 

at this particular moment for a lot of obvious reasons, I am here 

to tell you that we have people in Europe committed to being part 

of kinetic effort, outside of Europe and other parts of the world 

committed, and in the region, Arab commitments to be part of this 

effort. 

7

In Syria, the on the ground combat will be done by the moderate 

opposition, which is Syria’s best counterweight to extremists like 

ISIL. And we can talk more about that moderate opposition, what 

it looks like, who it is, what they are capable of today, what they 

could be doing as we go forward. 

In addition to the military campaign, we obviously need to dry 

up the illicit funding sources for al-Qaeda. We have to stop the foreign fighters, people with passports from some of your States, people who could return here with experience in fighting in Syria, or 

Iraq, and come back and engage in activities here. And the evidence of that is not in my saying it. A fighter who was in Syria 

traversed back through Turkey and other places, came back to Europe, a French sympathizer, went to Brussels and shot four people 

outside of a synagogue in Brussels. 

So I emphasize that when we say in addition there is another 

major step, and that will be to continue to deliver humanitarian assistance and to make a difference for the people on the ground so 

that they don’t get sucked in by the money that an ISIL can spend 

or even pay them. In addition, we have a major effort to undertake 

to repudiate the insulting distortion of Islam that ISIL is spreading. 

I was very encouraged to hear yesterday that Saudi Arabia’s top 

clerical entity, 21 clerics, unanimously came out and declared again 

that terrorism is a heinous crime under sharia law. More importantly, declared that ISIL has nothing to do with Islam, and that 

it is in fact the order of Satan. And this is vital, because we know 

that preventing any individual from joining ISIL, from getting to 

the battlefield in the first place is actually the most effective measure that we can take. 

The top, the grand mufti of Saudi Arabia last week said that 

ISIL is the number one enemy of Islam. And it might serve us all 

well to focus on it not in a name that gives it a state, but to focus 

on it as the enemy of Islam. That is why I spent the last days in 

Europe and in the Middle East building this coalition, together 

with other countries. 

And that is why I will be in New York tomorrow at the U.N. Security Council at a session that is aimed to build up this coalition 

even more, and to get even more specific about commitments from 

each country as to what they are going to do. We have more than 

50 countries now contributing in one way or another, with specific 

understanding of what those countries will do. Some will provide 

ammunition, some will help with the delegitimizing, some will engage in definancing, some will engage in military assistance, some 

in training and assistance, some in kinetic activities. 

In addition, in New York with me tomorrow will be General John 

Allen. I think many of you know him. Command in Afghanistan for 

2 years, 2011–2013, and deputy commander of Anbar in Iraq and 

great experience in the region, great respect in the region. Knowledge of the Sunni tribes, of all the folks there that are part of the 

mix to be able to mobilize action. And he can help us match up 

each country’s capabilities with the needs of the coalition. 

And that is another reason why we can’t lay it all out to you 

today because in the Pentagon, as well as in our intel community, 

8

as well as the White House, we are marrying all of the needs with 

the particular coalition contributors. 

Ambassador Brett McGurk, as well as Assistant Secretary Anne 

Patterson, who is so much of a part of the effort against al-Qaeda 

in Pakistan, are also leading the team. And I commit to you that 

we will continue to build and enhance the coalition well beyond 

UNGA. 

So with that, I look forward to your questions, and I hope we can 

get through as much as possible. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Secretary Kerry follows:]

9


89814a-1.eps
10


89814a-2.eps
11


89814a-3.eps
12


89814a-4.eps
13


89814a-5.eps
14


89814a-6.eps
15

Chairman ROYCE. And I think that does bring up a good question, Mr. Secretary, which is how we move forward to get a large 

portion of this paid for by Saudi Arabia, by Kuwait. 

I remember in 1990, when the invasion of Kuwait occurred, in 

order to push that army, which at the time was the fifth largest 

army in the world, the Iraqi Army, in order to push it out of Kuwait there was a coalition and there were 116,000 air strikes that 

decimated 42 divisions. Frankly, the tanks, 3,700 were destroyed, 

the armored vehicles were destroyed. We saw the value of air 

power in pushing back a force. And to date I think we have less 

than 200 air strikes. So that is one point I would bring up with 

you. 

Another point I would bring up just goes to the question of what 

we can do with respect to those passports you spoke of, French, 

Belgian, British, Australian. These are individuals who would be 

able to travel to the United States without a visa. I know that we 

have the authority here in the United States, State Department 

can revoke a passport if someone is likely to cause serious damage 

to the national security of the United States. But we frankly need 

some kind of interagency process I think to identify westerners 

that travel to fight alongside ISIL. And I wanted to speak to you 

about that issue as well. I have been working on legislation to address this. 

We should have a carve out, of course, for Doctors Without Borders, and the doctors group SAMS, and other groups that are going 

to try to help with respect to setting up hospitals in refugee camps. 

But in terms of those going to fight, I think we need a way to approach this to make certain that their ability to come back into the 

United States is made a hell of a lot more difficult than it is right 

now. 

And I want to ask you, Mr. Secretary, about that. 

Secretary KERRY. Yes, sir. Chairman Royce, let me just say very 

quickly it is just not the time to begin comparing the number of 

air strikes, because the number of air strikes that took place, obviously then, was related to an invasion, a full-scale invasion. This 

is not an invasion. This is a counterterrorism operation. And it is 

going to be different, number one. 

Number two, if we had engaged in just jumping in and leaping 

in and doing air strikes one place or another without the structure, 

without the forethought or the proper targeting and so forth and 

something went awry, we would be up here, and every single one 

of you would be looking at us and asking us why we shot before 

we aimed and did our homework. 

Chairman ROYCE. But Mr. Secretary, with all due respect on that 

point, our ability now with armed drones and with F–16s to be able 

to see a target from the air——

Secretary KERRY. I agree. 

Chairman ROYCE [continuing]. We could actually see from the 

planes the fact that they were flying this black flag, they were in 

long columns. We didn’t know what was happening here. They took 

Fallujah, you know, they took Tikrit, they eventually took Mosul, 

and in every one of these situations we had an opportunity to hit 

those columns from the air. 

16

Secretary KERRY. Mr. Chairman, you are absolutely correct. And 

I will tell you I was chomping at the bit and agonizing over that 

watching these convoys. And you would see them on CNN and say 

why aren’t we doing this? 

But in point of fact, when we stopped and thought through the 

strategy, if we had begun to do that and did it in full swing, we 

might have actually interrupted, if not prevented, the capacity of 

the Iraqi Government to have a new government and new formation. And there were serious considerations there about the timing 

and——

Chairman ROYCE. And I acknowledge that point, but at the same 

time, by the time this got to Mosul, and we are talking now about 

the central bank in Mosul, we had reached a point where the ability to take that city and take the cash out of the central bank 

would arm this terrorist organization to an extent that no terrorist 

organization previously had their hands on that much cash. 

Secretary KERRY. That is why we are building the coalition, 

Chairman, because they have to buy those weapons from somewhere. That cash has got to go out to another country, it has to 

go out through a system. Somehow those weapons have got to get 

in there. And if we do this effectively enough, and that is where 

all countries can play a role, shutting their borders, enforcing the 

law, engaging in intel cooperation, and preventing that money from 

being effective if you can’t spend it effectively out of the country. 

Now, that is one. 

Two, with respect to passports, you are absolutely correct, I have 

the authority to revoke passports. And we are currently examining 

all of the people, the individuals. We are trying to learn as well as 

we can who is there and what those possibilities are. We also need 

to do that with sensitivity to certain investigations that may be 

going on because you don’t want to flag something. 

Chairman ROYCE. I understand. 

Secretary KERRY. But we are well aware. That is part of the 

strategy and part of the process. And what I want to make certain 

is that anybody who has a passport who returns, returns in handcuffs, not through Customs with their passport. And that is our 

goal. Finally——

Chairman ROYCE. My time has expired. Finally, you can finish, 

Mr. Secretary. 

Secretary KERRY. No, no, that is fine. 

Chairman ROYCE. My only point here was we have to step it up 

from the air. 

Let’s go to Mr. Elliott Engel from New York. 

Mr. ENGEL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Secretary, there have been several falsehoods and misrepresentations of the moderate opposition, and particularly the Free 

Syria Army. 

I would like to clarify one point. The Free Syria Army is committed to fighting ISIL. I would like to request unanimous consent 

to place in the record a statement by General Bashir, the chief of 

staff of the supreme military command of the Free Syrian Army, 

in which he states that the Free Syrian Army is committed to 

fighting ISIL. 

I want to just quickly read part of his statement:

17

‘‘As chief of staff of the supreme military command, I 

hereby reaffirm the Free Syria Army’s continued commitment to removing the twin terrorists Bashar al-Assad and 

Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi from Syrian soil. The heroes of the 

Free Syrian Army have sacrificed thousands of brave souls 

in the fight against the imposter Islamic State over the 

past year. We fully plan to continue this fight until 

Baghdadi’s complete and utter defeat. The Assad regime 

collaborates with Islamic State and other terrorist groups 

like Hezbollah that seek our extermination. We will be unable to finish off Islamic State without also acting to stop 

Assad’s barbaric assaults. 

‘‘We call upon the world community, and the U.S. Congress in particular, to fulfill the humanitarian security responsibilities by providing the Free Syrian Army with robust support to bring a Syria free from terrorism in all its 

forms.’’

So I would like to put that into the record, Mr. Chairman. 

As the FSA fights ISIL, we must remember that Assad remains 

a magnet for terrorists and foreign fighters. So there will be no stabilization of this conflict unless Assad is forced to stop his barbaric 

slaughter of his own people. 

So I would like to ask you, Mr. Secretary, for comments on what 

I just said, and to clarify what you meant by the United States 

deconflicting with the Assad regime. What do you expect our policy 

toward the Assad regime to be? 

And additionally, it appears that Assad’s forces have encircled 

Aleppo, and that the moderate opposition is losing its ability to 

hold territory there. And knowing that Assad has employed a kneel 

or starve campaign, compelling his opposition to either surrender 

or die, and that Aleppo has symbolic importance as a rebel stronghold, what can the U.S. do to help prevent the starvation of the 

moderate opposition inside Aleppo and help them hold Aleppo? 

Secretary KERRY. Well, thank you, Congressman Engel. 

First of all, thank you for your leadership, and Chairman Royce, 

thank you for your leadership. You guys have been pushing on this, 

and you have been very articulate about the needs with respect to 

the Syrian opposition. And we appreciate that. And I appreciate 

the comments you just made. 

Indeed, the Syrian opposition is in the tens of thousands. I can’t 

tell you precisely exactly how many. But sufficient that they are a 

legitimate force. And the principal political arm of the opposition 

is the Syrian Opposition Coalition, the political arm, which is a 

group of people who represent the various parts of it. The SOC includes representatives of the Free Syrian Army and when possible, 

they have been able to provide funding and supplies to the fighting 

forces. 

The fighting forces are a conglomerate of armed groups that were 

formed to defend local communities from regime attacks and it includes secular as well as some Islamists. But the Islamist elements 

are opposed to ISIL and al-Nusra. 

We have very specific numbers in certain movements, like the 

Hazzm movement, is about 4,000 fighters divided into certain diviVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:00 Nov 06, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\_FULL\091814\89814 SHIRL
18

sions. There are regimist defectors who have come in who are also 

part of this effort. 

There are other groups, at least seven groups with somewhere 

between a couple of thousand and 4,000 fighters each. But that is 

not all of the moderate forces by any means. And what is important 

is all of these forces have a solid record of fighting ISIL. They have 

been fighting ISIL. They are fighting ISIL right now up around 

Aleppo and in other areas. 

In fact, they drove out ISIL from Idlib province. In Deir al-Zour, 

another area in the Damascus suburbs, they have been fighting. 

And the thinking is that without prompting from outside forces, 

without America coming in and saying we are helping to fight ISIL, 

they are fighting ISIL. 

So we believe that as this global coalition comes together, determined to take on ISIL, that the organizing principle of the region, 

which is success breeds success, you are going to begin to see more 

people say we are on the side of the moderates, we are going to be 

with the moderates. They will grow in strength. And we can begin, 

indeed, to isolate ISIL itself. 

Aleppo is still under siege, obviously. ISIL is trying to gain control of some border crossings. But helping those units right now 

around Aleppo actually could help us secure supply routes from 

Turkey and raise the moderate fighter morale in significant ways. 

The moderate opposition is also fighting al-Nusra, especially in 

Idlib Province. And our sense, again, is that on occasion there has 

been a kind of tactical cooperation purely for sort of immediate purposes. But to our judgment and the judgment of our people, it has 

had no lasting kind of impact. 

So our feeling is, Congressman, that we have something to work 

with here. I am not telling you it is easy. I am not going to tell 

you that it will happen all overnight. But there is indeed the Syrian opposition, which you have been arguing for a number of years, 

which notwithstanding the absence of a full throated support structure has survived and continues to fight. And our judgment is they 

will now even moreso. 

Chairman ROYCE. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen is chair of the Subcommittee on the Middle East and North Africa. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman and 

ranking member. 

Welcome, Mr. Secretary. 

I have reservations about the President’s plan to train and equip 

the so-called moderate Syrian rebels. The President doesn’t have 

the will to do all that is necessary in Iraq and Syria. And the result 

is the half measure that we passed yesterday, which tells our enemies what we won’t do. Does the President have this comprehensive plan to not only defeat ISIL but also other terrorist groups—

you just referred to al-Nusra—and remove Assad from power? Or 

do we no longer view Assad staying in power as an impediment? 

Ambassador Power said recently that there were discrepancies 

and omissions in Assad’s declaration regarding the removal and destruction of his chemical weapons stockpile. Assad did not live up 

to his obligations, and ISIL may use these, if it gets access to these 

weapons. Does Assad still have hidden, undeclared poison gases 

and chemical weapons? We have already seen that ISIL seized a 

19

former chemical weapons depot in Iraq and it would be a nightmare scenario if it were to also get Assad’s undeclared chemical 

weapons. 

Also, Mr. Secretary, reports suggest that ISIL fighters number in 

the 30,000 to 40,000 range, different reports. Given its sophistication and its force strength, how can we expect a few thousand Syrian rebels to fight against ISIL and Assad at the same time? 

We know that some of our top and former military leaders have 

said that a time may come when we may have to put boots on the 

ground to supplement the Kurds, the Iraqi forces, the so-called 

moderate Syrian rebels. But this has been repeatedly rebuffed by 

the President. Our allies in the gulf need to make substantive investments for the coalition. Has any country pledged or indicated 

that should the need arise it will be willing to send its own troops 

on the ground in Syria? 

And lastly, a point on the misguided Iran nuclear deal, why the 

double standard with Syria and Iran? We have rightfully demanded that Syria dismantle, destroy, and remove its chemical 

weapons program, however imperfectly. But we are allowing Iran 

to keep its nuclear program infrastructure intact with enrichment 

capabilities and thousands of centrifuges spinning. 

Thank you, sir. 

Secretary KERRY. There is a lot of meat there, and I obviously 

can’t get through all of it now, but I am happy to answer what we 

can in writing. 

Assad’s legitimacy? No. There is no legitimacy. We still believe 

that there is no way that we would imagine the support for those 

who have been taking on Assad is simply not going to stop. And 

so there is only a political solution here. And we don’t see how that 

has Assad with some long term future in Syria. Besides, even as 

they are willing to fight ISIL, the Syrian opposition is not going to 

stop continuing to fight Assad. So we recognize that reality. 

Secondly, with respect to poison gas, we actually accomplished 

something historic to many people’s skepticism about its possibilities. And that is that all of the declared prohibited chemicals under 

the Convention have been removed and destroyed. All of them. 

That has never happened, particularly in a time of conflict, in any 

country in the world. And I am very proud of the effort made by 

the folks who are arriving today in Virginia on the Cape Ray Merchant Marine, and the Navy and the other folks who were all involved in helping to achieve that goal. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. If I may, Mr. Secretary, so when Samantha 

Power says there are discrepancies and omissions——

Secretary KERRY. I was just going to come to that. She is right. 

Those are declared materials. Chlorine is not a required declared 

material. And we also have some questions about a couple of other 

items. Those are being prosecuted or, you know, being pursued 

within the process. 

And indeed, we believe there is evidence of Assad’s use of chlorine, which when you use it, despite it not being on the list, is prohibited under the Chemical Weapons Convention. So he is in violation of that agreement. And we believe, and we are proceeding to 

do things to——

20

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Thank you, sir. And I have some written 

questions regarding Venezuela sanctions and security for Camp 

Liberty at another time. 

Secretary KERRY. Delighted. Thank you. 

Chairman ROYCE. Without objection. 

Mr. Faleomavaega of American Samoa, ranking member of the 

Asia Subcommittee. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Secretary, the ISIS organization has caught the international community off guard. What began as a movement in tribal 

lands and minor outlying provinces is now a worldwide threat. 

Only after two beheadings did President Obama announce his 

strategy to, and I quote, ‘‘degrade and ultimately destroy the Islamic State organization.’’ While I appreciate your presence here 

today, Mr. Secretary, I cannot underscore the importance of 

Congress’s role in determining how the United States responds to 

this crisis. 

What we do and how we do it now is the main issue. We must 

act responsibly and swiftly. And we must have true and accurate 

facts and information so that we can assure the American people 

that our actions in the region are not only warranted, but just. We 

must act and get this thing correctly. 

You mentioned in your statement, Mr. Secretary, that ISIS has 

to be defeated. And you have also outlined some aspects of the administration’s efforts to fulfill this problem. As veterans ourselves 

in the Vietnam war, are we looking at another Vietnam, Mr. Secretary, if we don’t get this right? 

Secretary KERRY. No. Because we are not invading the country. 

We are not going to be getting in the middle of a civil war. We are 

going to be part of a coalition that is engaged in counterterrorism. 

This is a counterterrorist operation, not counterinsurgency, and 

certainly not engagement in a civil war. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Is there a concern among the neighboring 

countries in the region about what is happening as far as the operations and what the crisis organization has done? My point is that 

are the Arab countries supportive of us and our efforts to address 

this serious issue? 

Secretary KERRY. Hugely. Hugely supportive. That is what the 

Jeddah conference is about. We had all of the members of the Gulf 

Cooperation Council there, together with Lebanon, and Jordan, 

Iraq, and Turkey. 

And they all joined in a major condemnation, unified, about ISIL 

and what it is doing. And look, without seeking it, we obviously all 

know that on the surface, though he doesn’t have the ability or the 

will to do anything about it, Assad doesn’t like them. And Iran 

doesn’t like them. Russia doesn’t like them. Russia, which is supporting Assad. So you have a confluence of obviously strange bed 

fellows, which doesn’t promise cooperation, because we are not engaging in that, but all of them are opposed and I think people are 

clearly distinguishing between ISIL and other political issues of the 

region. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. You and I both know that rhetoric is very 

easy to come up with. Are they also committing resources to address this issue? 

21

Secretary KERRY. Yes. I am not going to run through them all 

now. But there are a lot of countries—40 countries have already 

sent in ammunition, provided money, engaged in humanitarian assistance. They are already engaged. We have a couple of nations 

that are already flying with us, though we haven’t, obviously, you 

know, made major pronouncements about where the whole coalition is because we are still in the process, as I said earlier, of delineating who will do what, when, where, and how. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. As a wounded combat veteran, Mr. Secretary yourself, in the Vietnam war, I cannot think of a better person that really appreciates and understands the importance that 

when we send our men, soldiers and sailors, at the expense of their 

lives, that we need to make this thing right. And we don’t need another Vietnam, in my opinion. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman ROYCE. Thank you. 

We go now to Mr. Chris Smith of New Jersey. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Secretary, welcome. 

Secretary KERRY. Thank you. 

Mr. SMITH. First of all, I want to thank you for your strong August 28 statement calling on Iran to release Saeed Abedini, Amir 

Hekmati, and to locate Robert Levinson. Perhaps you might want 

to tell us if there has been any response. But I do, and I know 

other members, are very grateful for that strong statement. 

Secondly, do the Leahy amendments, will they be vigorously applied to the vetting process? 

Secretary KERRY. Yes. 

Mr. SMITH. Okay. 

And third, over a year ago I wrote an op-ed published in the 

Washington Post calling for the creation of a war crimes tribunal 

for Syria, the idea being that there needs to be accountability for 

all sides, regardless of whoever commits the atrocities, and it needs 

to be done and set up and established immediately. 

A resolution calling for the immediate establishment of the tribunal was passed by this committee and awaits floor action. I argued then, and I would argue now, that the ICC, which has already 

had a thumbs down by the Russians, is not up to the task. 

David Crane, who as you know was the chief prosecutor of the 

Sierra Leone War Crimes Tribunal, testified here and said that the 

ICC is not up to the task. It has had only one conviction in about 

a dozen years. And that was of a person committing atrocities in 

the Democratic Republic of Congo. But the idea behind a hybrid, 

or a, you know, tribunal like Yugoslavia and Sierra Leone and 

Rwanda, would be that all sides would be held to account. 

Milosevic, as we all know, died while his trial was going on. 

Mladic and Karadzic are currently under—you know, their trials 

are continuing. Nobody thought at the time that Charles Taylor 

would get 50 years, the former President of Liberia. And I will 

never forget that picture of him after the verdict was read, looking 

down. Here is the man who, as you know and I know and others, 

and we fought against him for so long, the atrocities that he committed in Liberia and Sierra Leone. He is in jail now for 50 years. 

22

This would be an accountability initiative. It needs to be stood 

up immediately. And I respectfully hope that the administration 

will do just that. 

I yield. 

Secretary KERRY. Well, let me begin, Congressman, first of all, 

you are tireless and persistent in your advocacy for these things. 

And we all respect that enormously, number one. 

Number two, every occasion that we get, even most recently in 

Geneva at the meeting in the context of the P5+1, we raise the 

issue of our folks who are being held. And I can’t go into all of it 

here now except to tell you that we are actively pursuing some way 

of trying to see whether or not both countries’ needs can’t be met. 

As you can imagine, they have counter demands. And we are engaged in looking at that. But we are very much engaged. We have 

had various efforts for proof of life, we have had various discussions with other countries in the region. And this is very much on 

our minds. And the President will not rest when any American citizen is held like that and it remains unresolved. 

With respect to the tribunal, I personally, when I was in the Senate, I helped to work on the special U.N. tribunal that held the 

Khmer Rouge responsible for their atrocities. There is no question 

in my mind that what has happened in Syria, on a number of occasions the government has engaged in war crimes. And I think they 

need to be held accountable. And I very much support it. 

The President supports finding a mechanism that will do that. I 

don’t know if we have made the same judgment that some have 

with respect to the inability of the current structure to do it. But 

we ought to try to resolve this one way or the other. It shouldn’t 

be sitting in limbo. People need to know there is accountability. 

And one of the problems historically, as you know better than anybody, is the impunity that exists. If there is impunity in one country, in one area, one region, continent, or another, people tend to 

try to get away with things. It is the prosecution that acts as a deterrent, it is the accountability that stops it. And we will work with 

you to try to provide that. 

Chairman ROYCE. We go now to Mr. Sherman of California, 

ranking member of the Subcommittee on Terrorism, Nonproliferation, and Trade. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Secretary, I have got so much to cover, some 

of the questions you may want to respond to for the record. 

First, I want to commend the administration for its success in 

dealing with Assad’s chemical weapons. As you have pointed out, 

you may be 90 percent successful, you may be 99 percent successful, but there was no other plan presented that would have freed 

the world from the risk posed by the vast majority of Assad’s chemical weapons. 

I want to commend the chair and the ranking member for their 

opening statements, particularly the ranking member when he 

mentioned the Free Syria Act. I was happy to be an original cosponsor of that 11⁄2 years ago. And the ranking member is correct, 

we need to write a new authorization to use military force and replace the ones we have now. 

Whether or not your air campaign, Mr. Secretary, is legally authorized, depends upon whether ISIS is part of al-Qaeda. That is 

23

a metaphysical question. They weren’t in existence on September 

11, 2001. Then they were formed. Then they joined al-Qaeda. And 

then they left al-Qaeda. And now they are fighting al-Qaeda. I 

don’t know if they are part of al-Qaeda or not. It is a metaphysical 

question. The solution is for Congress to write a statute that fits 

2015 rather than see whether you can stretch a 2001 statute to fit 

a circumstance that was never anticipated. 

Mr. Secretary, the American people want a great plan. We want 

a guarantee of the immediate, total destruction of ISIS, without 

U.S. casualties. And the administration will be pilloried for not developing such a plan. I want to commend you for not giving in to 

the political pressure to promise what cannot be delivered. 

In your statement you said we would defeat ISIS. I know the 

President’s words are eventually defeat ISIS. To listen to some 

pundits, you would think that not only do we have to totally and 

immediately destroy ISIS, but we have to do so without discussions 

with questionable allies. And the Middle East has almost no allies 

except questionable allies. The fact is that can be done if we are 

willing to put 1⁄2 million troops on the ground the way—or at least 

several hundred thousand troops on the ground and incur the casualties that none of the pundits is willing to discuss. 

But it also ignores another situation. It is not just who you destroy, it is who you empower. And ISIS’s most powerful opponents, 

at least most powerful today, are nearly as evil as ISIS, and perhaps more dangerous. Hezbollah, Iran, the extremist Shiite militias 

that Iran controls, Assad, al-Nusra, a division of al-Qaeda. These 

are the other powerful forces on the battlefield. And there is a lot 

of discussion about how ISIS members have passports that might 

allow them to conduct terrorist operations outside the Middle East. 

Hezbollah has killed hundreds of Americans in Lebanon. Iran 

and Hezbollah have killed hundreds of Americans in Iraq. And 

both have conducted terrorist activities on a variety of different 

continents. Mr. Secretary, the Middle East is a region of incredibly 

complex evil. Caution is not a vice and bravado is not a virtue. 

Maliki ignored us, didn’t need us. Abadi needs us. I hope that 

one of the things you bring up with him is his international obligations to protect those who are living at Camp Liberty. Turkey is 

not fulfilling its responsibilities. And here I do have a question, believe it or not. 

One of the problems with Turkey is they are allowing this oil to 

be smuggled. The question is, and I don’t want you to give away 

any secrets here but is there some reason why we haven’t bombed 

those oil fields and refineries under ISIS control? This would deprive them of money from smuggling. It would deprive them of fuel 

for their own operations. It would also, unfortunately, deprive civilians under their control of fuel as well. 

During World War II we bombed oil fields and refineries even if 

that meant that enemy civilians couldn’t get fuel. Do we have an 

objection to bombing these oil fields and refineries now? 

Secretary KERRY. I haven’t heard any objection. 

Chairman ROYCE. Why don’t we do this, Mr. Secretary. 

Why don’t I suggest we respond in writing, because the gentleman used all of his time. 

24

Given that circumstance, we will go to Mr. Rohrabacher of California, chair of the Subcommittee on Europe, Eurasia, and Emerging Threats. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you. 

And first of all, let me express my appreciation to you personally, 

Mr. Secretary. You are working hard, you are doing your best for 

us. We may have some disagreements, but all of us should appreciate the hard work that you are putting out. And also the respect 

that you are showing the American people and Congress today by 

being here and opening yourself up to this type of very energetic 

questioning. 

So I will get to my energetic questioning. Let me understand. 

The proposal that I seem to be seeing here is that we support the 

Free Syrian Army, and we build them up, and although it does 

have some good elements, there is every indication that it is riddled with radical Islamic elements, terrorists, many of whom are 

more committed to fighting the regime, Assad’s regime, than fighting ISIL. And Assad’s regime, which of course means us no harm, 

but they themselves are engaged with fighting ISIL. 

In the end, it seems to me we are going to be basically providing 

weapons in order to undercut an enemy of ISIL, who is engaged 

deeply in fighting that radical Islamic terrorist element. Am I 

wrong in that? Am I missing something there? 

The dynamic that is created in the end, a big army that—Assad’s 

regime’s armed forces that are a major part in the fight against 

ISIL are going to be undercut by what we are doing? 

Secretary KERRY. Regrettably, Congressman, no, we are not 

going to be undercut. Because if Assad’s forces indeed do decide to 

focus on ISIL significantly, which they haven’t been doing throughout this period—I mean there is evidence that Assad has played 

footsie with them. And he has used them as a tool of weakening 

the opposition. And therefore, never took on their headquarters, 

which were there and obvious, and other assets that they had. So 

we have no confidence that Assad is either capable of or willing to 

take on ISIL, number one. 

So we don’t see a conflict in that process. Now, that may develop 

somewhat depending on how far they get. I think, with respect to 

the weapons and what is going to them, I am not going to sit here 

and tell you that the vetting process is a perfect process. But we 

have gained enormous expertise in the vetting over 20 years. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Okay. 

Secretary KERRY. General Nagata——

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Secretary——

Secretary KERRY. Let me just say perhaps you guys might invite 

him up here. I think it would be worth your hearing from him as 

to exactly how they vet, what they do. We have a lot of relationships with vetted moderate members. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I think we have a poor track record in determining who our friends are in the past. And vetting, I will have 

to tell you, Mr. Secretary, the people we rely on for that vetting I 

don’t have any confidence in whatsoever. 

Mr. Secretary, the administration inherited a big challenge in 

the Middle East. The Republican administration left this administration with big problems. And I think that this administration has 

25

turned a big challenge into a major crisis and one of the most significant factors in turning this into a crisis is this administration 

seems unable to go directly to America’s best allies and support 

them, but instead find fault with them, and have basically overseen 

replacing good allies who were flawed with people who hate us, an 

expansion of the radical Islamic terrorist movement in that area. 

The people I know in that region who are the most loyal to us are 

the Kurds. And yet this administration insists on all of the supplies 

that were going to were a bulwark against these radicals. All the 

supplies have to go through Baghdad. 

Now, why are we marginalizing our best friends the Kurds and 

denying them the weapons they need—and they are really on the 

front line—in order to help the government in Baghdad, who by the 

way, I think still is allied with the mullah regime in Iran. And in 

fact here we are contacting the mullah regime to associate with us, 

but here Assad is a horrible alternative to deal with, but we can 

deal with the Iranian mullahs. I mean this is contradictory. It 

seems again our friends are getting short-changed because they are 

imperfect, and we end up helping our enemies. 

Secretary KERRY. Well, Congressman, there are two big points 

you raise there; and I want to take them both on. 

We could not be more engaged with our long-time, good friends 

throughout the region. I have probably made more trips as Secretary of State to the region and had more conversations in 11⁄2

years than any former Secretary of State. 

We just came back from a meeting hosted by one of our foremost, 

most important, longest allies in the region, Saudi Arabia. There 

was unanimity at that meeting from all of the folks present, including some you might be referring to who don’t have a record of being 

fully supportive of every effort all the time in that region. But that 

is not us. That is them. 

We have made it clear what our expectations are. And our expectations are that people stop funding Islamic radical groups—Islamic is the wrong word—radical religious extremists. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Right. Okay. 

Secretary KERRY. We need to stop seeing them funded, and we 

need to start making sure there is a solid support stream and only 

that stream to the moderate opposition. So we are on the same 

page. 

Chairman ROYCE. We are going to go——

Secretary KERRY. Now, you asked for this—this is important, Mr. 

Chairman, because maybe you can rectify it. You complain about—

you say the administration is responsible for sending all these 

weapons through Baghdad. No, we are not. You are. We are adhering to U.S. law, passed by Congress with respect to export-import 

and exports and what we are allowed to do. We have to send it to 

the Government, because that is U.S. law. If you want to change 

it to fix it——

Mr. ROHRABACHER. That is why we should recognize the Kurdish 

Government, well, the sovereign power. 

Chairman ROYCE. The time has expired. But that particular 

point you raise about changing law is one that we could undertake 

and, given the frustrations of the Kurdish foreign minister, I think 

it is one we will undertake. 

26

We go now to Mr. Gregory Meeks of New York. 

Mr. MEEKS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And thank you, Mr. Secretary, for all the work that you have 

been doing. 

Yesterday I voted in support of the amendment that would authorize the training and equipping of appropriate vetted elements 

of the Syrian opposition. And I did so because I believe that we 

can’t ignore the threat from ISIL and because, I believe, that the 

strategy that the President has proposed is probably the best option that is available to us at this time. 

But it wasn’t an easy vote. It is a very—it was a very difficult 

vote. And I had to talk to a number of different individuals that 

reached out to Ambassadors and, of course, attended all of the classified meetings, et cetera, come away with what you said is absolutely key and essential that we have to have—this cannot be seen 

as the United States against Sunni Muslims. 

And so everybody being engaged in more than just words, but actually engaged in this fight, I think, is absolutely important. 

But one of the things that I came away with after the vote in 

talking to members on the floor and in talking all today, there were 

certain questions that came up. In fact, certain questions were 

asked here today; and you didn’t have a chance to answer. So I 

thought that I would ask a couple of them, and then be quiet so 

you could have a chance to answer. 

One that continues to happen is the question of a slippery slope. 

And given that, I know that you understand this because of your 

service in Vietnam and your talk. 

So the question was: How will you assess if this war has gone 

wrong, if it is going wrong, and why we are not on a slippery slope 

and what is different this time? So I would like to know that. 

Then I think Mr. Engel and Mr. Sherman talked about the 

AUMF, and so I was wondering if—and I believe that you already 

have authority that you need, but many want to renew it. So could 

you or would you be helpful in language on a new AUMF, and are 

you willing to work with Congress on this matter? 

Secretary KERRY. Well, absolutely, Congressman. Thank you very 

much for both questions. They are very relevant. Very appropriate. 

On the slippery slope issue, I think it is ingrained in a lot of us 

through the past experience of the last 45, 50 years, in some cases, 

very personally, in other cases, through the experience here in the 

Congress and through our experience in the Middle East in the last 

few years. 

So we are all fairly warned. We understand the dangers. That is 

why the President is being so clear. And that is why the President 

is adamant about building this coalition with the real assumption 

of responsibility within the coalition, not a hold your coat, we will 

watch you while you do it, not a fig leaf kind of, you know, we will 

do a little bit, but a genuine coalition to tackle what is a genuine 

threat to every one of those countries more immediately in some 

ways than to us. 

Now, that has to happen. And we are going to be very disciplined 

and very tough about making that kind of assessment; and you are, 

too—and we know that—in conjunction with each other. So I think 

we will know fairly rapidly how things are coming together, how 

27

effective, what is effective. And we have got a really tough individual seasoned in leadership in these things in John Allen, who 

will help us make those judgments as we go along. 

On the AUMF, we welcome updating the AUMF. We are not trying to avoid that. It would be very good for everybody, I think. And 

so we welcome it. And, of course, we will work with you, very, very 

closely in an effort to do that. Chairman Menendez said yesterday 

that he is, in fact, already proceeding down that road; and we intend to work with him and with all of you in order to be effective. 

But we are convinced beyond any doubt that we do have the legal 

authority to proceed now. 

Would it be better to have something in 2014 that speaks to this 

particular situation rather than a 2001 AMF? Sure. But that is not 

where we are starting. And we need to get moving, and we have 

been very careful to make the judgments about authority here. 

One of the reasons, you know, that we couldn’t move without 

coming to you before was because we didn’t have authority, in our 

judgment, with respect to Syria and chemical weapons because that 

didn’t fall under the 2001 AUMF. So we have clearly drawn that 

distinction and there is effort to stretch here. 

But we will be better, all of us, with Congress, the American people clear about where we are heading. 

Chairman ROYCE. We go to Mr. Chabot of Ohio, chairman of the 

Subcommittee on Asia. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And thank you for appearing this morning—this afternoon, Mr. 

Secretary. 

Like everybody in this room, I am sure I watched and, I think, 

a lot of people watched the President. Many, I think, were shocked 

when he emphasized that the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant 

was, in fact, not Islamic. They now simply refer to themselves as 

the Islamic State. You know, they don’t call themselves the Methodist state or Episcopalian state, or the Baptist state. They are the 

Islamic State and, I think, for good reasons. 

You know, when Christians, for example, are told to convert to 

Islam or die, that would seem to fly in the face of the President’s 

insistence that the Islamic State is not the Islamic State, and an 

indication that he may not fully accept that radical Islam is, indeed, something that does exist and, in fact, is growing. 

Now, let me get to my question. The President has emphasized 

over and over again that there will be no American boots on the 

ground. Isn’t that terminology misleading? We have already or soon 

will have 1,600 American military personnel back to Iraq. And I 

say ‘‘back.’’ I know that you emphasized earlier in your statement, 

we didn’t want to rehash old things, but I think it would be remiss 

in saying if we didn’t say that ISIL wouldn’t have been as successful as it has that thus far in taking land and literally slaughtering 

so many people had the U.S. not pulled the troops out. 

When I have been to Iraq, every time that I was there, I think, 

everybody, our military personnel, the Iraqis, our diplomats, everybody anticipated that there would be a residual U.S. force there. 

And you talk about snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, I 

think that is exactly what happened here. But I digress. 

28

Back to the 1,600 U.S. military personnel and probably more 

that will be on the ground there. And I know that is for training 

and it is for intelligence purposes and it is for targeting our air 

power and so forth. 

But my question is: Is the administration really being straight 

with the American people when you keep emphasizing no boots on 

the ground? And isn’t this 1,600 military personnel, at the present 

time, likely to go up and perhaps significantly? 

Secretary KERRY. Well, you raise two important things, and I 

would like to speak both of them quickly. And I will answer your 

question. 

The Islamic State, they call themselves obviously what they want 

to call themselves. We shouldn’t compound the sin by allowing 

them to get away with it and calling them what they are not. They 

are not a state, and they do not represent Islam. And as I said earlier, now religious leaders, Islamic leaders are reclaiming legitimate Islam; and they are separating it, too. So I wouldn’t compound the crime by calling them a state whatsoever. 

They are the enemy of Islam. That is what they are. And as the 

21 clerics yesterday said in Saudi Arabia, they are, in fact, the 

order of Satan. And there is nothing in Islam that condones or suggests people should go out and rape women and sell off young girls 

or give them as gifts to jihadists and, you know, cut people’s heads 

off and tie people’s hands behind their backs and put them on their 

knees and shoot them in the head. These are war crimes, and they 

are crimes against humanity. And we need to make clear that that 

is exactly what is the reality here. 

Mr. CHABOT. And not to interrupt you, Mr. Secretary. 

Secretary KERRY. Yeah. 

Mr. CHABOT. And I agree with all the things you have said as 

far as the things they have done are horrific. No question about 

that. But it is clear to me that their motivation is their religious 

fervor, this fanaticism, however misguided it is. I mean, that is 

their motivation. 

Secretary KERRY. Well, I don’t know. They use that. I don’t know 

if that is in truth. It is part of it. The caliphate is certainly on the 

minds of many. But I think a lot of them are thugs and criminals 

and people who simply want to go out and maraud and vanquish 

and be opposed to modernity and a whole bunch of other things 

here. 

Mr. CHABOT. I certainly agree with you there. 

Secretary KERRY. There is a lot of stuff going on there. With respect to troops and the President, the President has again and 

again said no combat troops. He just said it yesterday at 

CENTCOM very, very clearly. 

I think I have his statement somewhere—here is what he said: 

‘‘Will not have a combat—the troops that have deployed to Iraq do 

not and will not have a combat mission.’’

He has been absolutely up front about what they are going to be 

doing. They are going to be training and assisting, helping with 

intel, helping to build the capacity; but they will not have a combat 

role. 

And what is important with respect to what you said about the 

expectation of troops staying in Iraq, yes, there was an expectation; 

29

but we couldn’t get the immunities and legal protection for them 

over the long term required for up to 10,000 troops. And, therefore, 

they didn’t stay. But no one makes the judgment that what happened in Mosul happened because noncombat troops weren’t there. 

These guys weren’t going to be combat troops. 

Chairman ROYCE. We are going to——

Secretary KERRY. What happened in Mosul happened because 

the troops there had no stake in fighting for Mosul, and the officers 

abandoned their posts. They had a greater allegiance to one person 

or to one sect than they did to Iraq and that is the problem. 

Chairman ROYCE. We are going to go to Mr. Sires from New Jersey, ranking member of the Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere. 

Mr. SIRES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Secretary KERRY. Can I just say to the committee, I have just 

been given a note that says that President Hollande has announced 

that he has authorized for France to provide air strikes in Iraq in 

response to a request from the Government of Iraq. And we obviously welcome that public announcement. That is one of the countries that we have been counting in our list. 

Chairman ROYCE. Here here. 

Mr. Sires. 

Mr. SIRES. Thank you. 

Mr. Secretary, thank you very much. I want to get back a little 

bit to the questions of the Kurds and see if we can get a little more 

detail. They have been playing such a strong role and such strong 

supporters of us. They have been basically holding the line, I guess, 

the Islamic State and providing Christians and other minorities 

with some safe haven. 

But yesterday we had dinner with one of the ministers, and one 

of his biggest complaints was that they don’t seem to be working 

with the new Government of Baghdad. And the other one was that 

the arms that we are providing, it comes in in trickles; and they 

need the arms necessary to continue the push. 

Obviously, they have been our friends for many years. Obviously, 

we work with them. They have been loyal. I am just wondering if—

I know it is going to take time, and I know you have a hard job 

putting all these groups together. But it would seem to me that 

this would be one of our priorities, to make sure that they have 

what they need to keep pushing ISIL back. 

So I was just wondering, can you talk a little bit about that? 

Secretary KERRY. I am delighted to talk a little bit about that. 

Look, I traveled to Erbil a few weeks ago, I think it was a few 

weeks ago, to meet with President Barzani and talk about the government formation and, also, about the steps that we would take. 

So let me make it clear that first of all, we conducted targeted 

air strikes to stop ISIL’s advance on Erbil. The Kurds were courageous, but I will tell you ISIL was advancing rapidly and President 

Obama made the emergency decision and we went in and we 

stopped them advancing. 

Number 2, we immediately opened a joint operation center in 

Erbil to share information and intelligence at an unprecedented 

level. 

30

Number 3, we led an international effort to provide the 

Peshmerga with weapons and ammunition. And, at least, 39 international flights have arrived in Erbil carrying arms for the KRG. 

The coalition, up to now, has provided 22 million rounds of ammunition, tens of thousands of small arms, heavy mortars, heavy 

crew-served machine guns, anti-aircraft, anti-vehicle machine guns, 

and RPGs. 

We have coordinated donors, like, Albania and Croatia with air 

transport providers, including U.K., Canada, Denmark, and Australia. And the President of the United States provided $25 million 

in drawdown funds to support operations which directly supported 

the KRG’s supply efforts. 

So I have to tell you, you know, I think some 17 flights of ours 

have gone in with these weapons and these arms. So we will continue. We are moving as fast as we can. And we are doing, I think, 

a pretty darn good job of getting weapons into the Kurds whom we 

have great respect for, the Peshmerga are a key component of this. 

Now, I am concerned about what you said about how they have 

a sense of not working closely enough with the government. 

Mr. SIRES. Well, one of the reasons they said that is because they 

are not even getting paid. 

Secretary KERRY. Well, the government has just gotten going. 

One of the parts of the agreement of the government formation 

was that an immediate $1 billion would be paid, and it was, as the 

government came together. There is up to $4 billion that is needed 

in order to pay back salaries. The next $1 billion is on its way. So 

I think that will be addressed because everybody understood that 

was part of the deal of the government coming together. 

Mr. SIRES. Well, I think one of the concerns that they have is 

that we make these deals and then the Government of Baghdad 

does not keep up their end. 

Secretary KERRY. Let me tell you, if the Government of Baghdad 

does not keep up their end—and we have made this crystal clear 

to them—they are going to have trouble seeing the United States 

of America do the things they need to do. 

Mr. SIRES. Okay. Thank you very much. 

Chairman ROYCE. Joe Wilson of South Carolina. 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And thank you, Mr. Secretary, for being here. 

Over the weekend, the President promised that, as we defeat 

ISIL, there will be no more mistakes. I look forward to working 

with you to avoid his mistake. The Obama mistake of underestimating ISIL as JV (junior varsity). Just 16 months ago, the 

President announced that the terrorist threat was being diminished; but at the same time, Dr. Fred Kagan of the American Enterprise Institute warned that they were growing safe havens of 

terrorists across North Africa, across the Middle East, and Central 

Asia. 

The Obama mistake of failing to secure a basic security agreement with Iraq, this undermines the achievements of the American 

allies forces in promoting freedom in Iraq. And I particularly identified two of my sons served in Iraq. And I am very grateful for 

their service. 

31

The Obama mistake of defense sequestration, downsizing the 

military as jihadists threats expand, allowing safe havens to attack 

American families worldwide. 

The Obama mistake of failing to support the students of Iran’s 

green revolution. We should remember the Iranian revolution supporters in Tehran carried signs very clearly in English; and they 

state, ‘‘Death to Israel. Death to America.’’

The Obama mistake of declaring a red line in Syria on chemical 

weapons and then blaming others. Clearly, the red line was stated 

first in a speech by the President on August 20, 2012. 

The Obama mistake of releasing five murderous Taliban while 

negotiating with the terrorists. One of the terrorists was praised by 

the Taliban murders as the equivalent of 10,000 warriors to destroy America. The detention facility at Guantanamo Bay is more 

important than ever. 

The Obama mistake of announcing an Afghan withdrawal date, 

disregarding conditions, putting Afghanistan and Pakistan at risk. 

The Obama mistake of equating Hamas rocket attacks with 

Israel’s self-defense. We should recognize Hamas’ creed, ‘‘We value 

death more than you value life.’’

The Obama mistake of the Benghazi assassinations coverup. The 

Obama mistake of the Fort Hood massacre dismissed as workplace 

violence, and the Little Rock murderer as a drive-by shooting. 

The President obviously needs to change course and adopt peace 

through strength. We know weakness endangers American families 

worldwide. 

I believe the President should take action, remembering September 11th in the global war on terrorism. 

And I am pleased to hear and I join with Congressman Sires in 

regard to our concern for the Kurdish region. The Kurdish region 

has been loyal allies of America for decades. The people are very 

brave and capable; but I have heard, as he, that the necessary military supplies are not being delivered. They are putting the Kurdish 

people at great risk. And so, again, what steps are being made to 

certainly guarantee and make sure that the Kurdish region receives the necessary supplies to defend themselves? 

Secretary KERRY. I don’t know where to begin, Congressman. 

I will tell you where I will begin: And thank you for your two 

sons. We really appreciate their enormous contribution to the country. 

And I obviously disagree with your judgment about mistakes, the 

red lines. We can have an argument about that, but I don’t think 

it serves any great purpose here today. 

So what I will do is, we can answer you on the record on that. 

But I do say thank you for your sons’ service. That is what makes 

America great. 

Mr. WILSON. And a restatement again of support for the Kurdish 

region and a commitment that we are going to follow through with 

weapons. 

Secretary KERRY. Well, as I said, we are deeply committed. The 

Kurds are essential partners in this. We have enormous respect for 

the courage they have already shown and the fight they have already taken to ISIL. And we are aiming for success, Congressman. 

Believe me, the President is deeply committed to this effort. 

32

The one thing I would say, after the list of mistakes, is, I honestly can’t think of a President who has taken more risks and put 

more on the line to fight the continued struggle against terrorism, 

specifically, his efforts in Afghanistan, his efforts in Pakistan, his 

efforts in Yemen, his efforts in Mali, his efforts in Libya, I mean, 

you can run the list. 

Mr. WILSON. And, Mr. Secretary, one final question. Yes or no, 

is America at war? 

Secretary KERRY. Well, you know, I am going to answer that, Mr. 

Chairman. A lot of people are debating this idea of what do you call 

it. Do you call it war or don’t you call it war? 

It is not a war like Iraq where we invaded and had hundreds of 

thousands of troops mobilized and 16,000 sorties and so forth. It is 

not that kind of war. 

But if you care about what you call it, it is a war similar to what 

we did with al-Qaeda and terror. And, sure, what I care about is 

not what we call it. I care about what we do, and I care about making sure we defeat ISIL. 

And if you are more comfortable calling it a war against this 

enemy of Islam, then, please do so. We are happy. We would call 

it that. And it is much more important to focus on how we are 

going to do it. 

Mr. WILSON. And action—you are correct. 

Chairman ROYCE. The time has expired. 

We are going to have to go to Gerry Connolly of Virginia. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. You could say that with some enthusiasm, Mr. 

Chairman. 

I was listening carefully to my colleague from South Carolina, 

and I must respectfully take issue. What happened in Syria last 

year was a signal failure by this Congress. In a very rare event, 

a President of the United States came to Congress and said, ‘‘Here 

is the problem, here is what I want to do about it, give me an authorization.’’

And what did we do? We dithered, we kvetched, we wrung our 

hands, we found all kinds of rationalizations for why we just 

couldn’t bring ourselves to do it. And I think we damaged the 

United States’ foreign policy, United States’ standing, and our respectability as an institution. So if we are going to start finger 

pointing, let’s start with ourselves. 

Having said that, Mr. Secretary, welcome back to Congress. 

Secretary KERRY. I was——

Mr. CONNOLLY. The fun never stops around here. 

Mr. Secretary, you bravely served your country. You won medals 

for your service in an undeclared war in Southeast Asia. And at 

that time we had two Presidents who used the Gulf of Tonkin resolution basically to engage in a massive ground war in mainland 

Asia. That was a fairly flimsy basis upon which to wage war, and 

all of us of that generation are cognizant of that. 

So I want to return—and I understand you are wearing a different hat today than you did when you were on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. But we heard you say and we heard the 

President say, you welcome a congressional authorization. But, I 

guess, I would gently prod you. Don’t you need it? Isn’t it just as 

flimsy to cite a resolution for a different time, a different environVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:00 Nov 06, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\_FULL\091814\89814 SHIRL
33

ment, a different challenge 13 years ago? And wouldn’t it be better 

for our country, our allies, and for the mission we are undertaking 

to have a full-blown debate and to request that authorization as, 

I believe, the Constitution of the United States requires, but I 

know we are not going to agree. I want to give you an opportunity? 

Secretary KERRY. Well, thank you, Congressman. Thank you for 

your original comment. 

I think I said to you that, of course, it would be better to have 

an update. It would be better to have the Congress ratify and join 

in. It would be better to have the American people represented by 

the Congress through a good debate and what is happening, for 

sure. I haven’t changed in all these years with respect to that. 

But it is not necessary for the President to begin the process that 

he is beginning. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Secretary, if I can interrupt, because we 

have limited time. And you said you think you have all the authorization you need from that resolution of 13 years ago, the authorization? 

Secretary KERRY. We are convinced. We have tested this very 

carefully with the lawyers and I have as good a set of lawyers as 

anywhere in the country and in the State Department and in the 

White House and they conclude, without any question, that ISIL 

began as al-Qaeda in Iraq. And the authorization clearly in 2005, 

2006, 2007, 2008 referred to al-Qaeda in Iraq. Just standing up in 

2013 a year ago and saying, ‘‘Hey, we are no longer going to be 

part of this because we happen to be worse than them and they 

don’t like us anymore’’ doesn’t get you out from under who you are 

and what you are trying to do and how you do it. 

And, therefore, yes, it is a span of years. It wasn’t something 

that any of us foresaw. But it doesn’t affect the legality of the fact 

that this still is the same group that was doing what they did in 

Iraq. They called itself al-Qaeda in Iraq, they were part of al-Qaeda 

in Iraq, and now they are continuing to do the same in both places, 

in Iraq and in Syria. 

We are convinced that the longstanding relationship they had 

with Bin Laden, the longstanding relationship with al-Qaeda, the 

continued desire to attack the United States and U.S. Persons, two 

of whom they have already murdered, we have the authority without any question; and it referred to the affiliates by the way. The 

language of the resolution referred to al-Qaeda and its affiliates. 

There is no question that these guys were an affiliate or are an affiliate. 

So we are convinced we have it. But, yes, we are definitely 

stronger as a country, which is why the President came to Congress for the Syria authorization previously. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. I thank you. 

Chairman ROYCE. To Mr. Mike McCaul of Texas, chairman of the 

Committee on Homeland Security. 

Mr. MCCAUL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you, Mr. Secretary, for being here today. We have known 

about this threat for well over a year. It has been festering. 

I believe when the beheadings of the American journalists took 

place, it was a real wake-up call for the American people about the 

evil of ISIS or ISIL. 

34

Then we watched, I think, the President go through what I perceived a very tortured decision-making process, I think, in part, because it defies his narrative that he campaigned on that he was 

going to end these wars. And it defies his legacy as well. 

Having said that, I am glad that he finally came around on the 

issue, listened to General Dempsey, the chairman of the joint 

chiefs, that basically told him that we cannot defeat ISIS unless we 

go into Syria. 

We just heard today, and I had a briefing on the Australian plot 

that was thwarted, this is an external operation, coming out of 

Syria, involving the beheadings of Australians and then a potential 

attack on their FBI. 

As the chairman of Homeland Security, I don’t want to see that 

happen in the United States; and I know nobody sitting here today 

wants to see that either. I would commend your pick of General 

Allen. I think that is probably one of the best decisions I have seen 

made. 

I also think and I have always said that the moderate Muslims’ 

most effective weapon we have against the extremist radical Muslim. That appears to be the strategy here with the vetting process. 

Now, I have had my issues with the Syrian rebels in terms of 

throwing money and weapons without a proper vetting and training. I met with the Pentagon and was persuaded by the fact this 

is off-site in Saudi; that we do have the databases sufficient to 

properly train and vet them. 

But eventually what turned me around was the fact that we are 

going to train the moderate Sunni Muslim to combat the extreme 

Sunni Muslim, and it is their fight. And we can provide assistance 

and capabilities and air strikes, and we will have advisors, and we 

will probably have special forces. But at the end of the day, it is 

their backyard. 

And so my question to you is: When you met with these nations 

that, quite honestly, threw a lot of money indiscriminately that created this problem, it seems to me they ought to be fixing it as well. 

What are they willing to put on the table to assist this effort? 

And, specifically, are they willing to put a ground force? Because 

that is what is lacking in Syria. We have that in Iraq, but we don’t 

have that in Syria. 

I am concerned that the number of 5,000, over a period of 6 

months, when you are looking at 30,000 ISIS forces and growing 

every day, whether that is going to be a realistic, achievable strategy without more assistance from these other Nations and, particularly, the Arab world that, I think, has some responsibility to bear 

the burden. 

Secretary KERRY. Well, Congressman, first of all, thank you for 

your leadership on Homeland Security and your service in there because that is key to our safety, obviously. And we appreciate that. 

I think it is unfair to confuse careful with ‘‘tortured.’’ I have 

watched the President ask a lot of tough questions that are appropriate and look for consequences that need to be analyzed prior to 

making a Presidential decision. And I think careful is what people 

want in a President. 

Secondly, the President has accepted General Dempsey’s advice 

that you have to go into Syria, that you have to be able to impact 

35

Syria; and he said that to the Nation. And I advocate the same 

thing. I think you cannot attack ISIL only in Iraq. You just can’t 

do it. 

If they go seek refuge in Syria and they have a safe haven there, 

that is directly contrary to the very policy we have pursued about 

not allowing sanctuary for al-Qaeda in Pakistan or elsewhere. So, 

you know, you can’t contain. There is no containment with this 

group. There is no such thing as negotiation. There is nothing to 

negotiate. And I think everybody here understands that. 

So that requires a willingness to go get the job done. Now, in 

that context, you are absolutely correct that money came from 

places that it shouldn’t have come to some of these groups and they 

morphed. And I think people would sit there in a moment of candor 

and tell you today that they acknowledge that. But that is part of 

what is giving us the unity of purpose to rectify that now. So I am 

very hopeful. 

You say ISIL is growing every day and there are only 5,000 opposition fighters. You go get the classified numbers. But the classified 

numbers say to us there are tens of thousands of opposition fighters today. Not 5,000. Five thousand is what the initial training can 

produce. And if we are successful, if, you know, this enemy of Islam 

can get set back sufficiently, young people and possible recruits are 

going to have a different attitude about where they might want to 

be and with whom. And that could change very rapidly. 

So the numbers are something that could be in flux. I am not 

going to sit here and tell you with certainly it is only 5,000. That 

is the target. But I can tell you that I don’t think these guys are 

10 feet tall. And the intelligence tells us that, as we have begun 

to hit them, we have been able to prove that to some degree. 

Chairman ROYCE. We go now to Mr. Ted Deutch of Florida, ranking member on the Subcommittee on Middle East and North Africa. 

Mr. DEUTCH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thanks to you and the ranking member for ensuring this committee has an opportunity to discuss directly with the administration the U.S. strategy to the ISIL threat. 

Mr. Secretary, thank you for being here today. Before going into 

my questions about this topic, I want to join Mr. Smith in thanking 

you for your statements about the Americans who have been held 

in Iran. 

And, in particular, I would note that, as we approach the November deadline for nuclear talks with Iran, we will also be approaching yet another Thanksgiving that Bob Levinson will not be with 

his family. While I appreciate all of your efforts, I nevertheless 

want to continue to urge you to press the Iranians, as I know you 

do at every meeting, for any information on Mr. Levinson and urge 

them to show some humanity and some good faith by permitting 

Mr. Levinson to be reunited with his family. 

The administration has outlined a comprehensive strategy for 

combating the ISIL terrorist threat that encompasses, not just a 

targeted air campaign, but efforts to cut off ISIL’s financial support, strengthen moderate forces in the ground in Syria. 

Mr. Secretary, you personally traveled to nearly every Arab 

state, securing the support of our partners in the region. You and 

36

the President have helped to build a strong international coalition, 

and I support your efforts. I commend you for them and I think we 

are grateful for them. 

I just wanted to follow up on Mr. Connolly’s questioning with a 

couple of points. One, I would like to associate myself with his comments about the actions of this Congress a year ago. But I would 

also like to just to suggest that while yesterday’s vote was about 

authorizing funding to support the Syrian opposition, we do need 

to have a broader debate about authorizing the use of military 

force. That is not what yesterday’s vote was. 

And while you may be precisely right that the AUMF from 2001 

legally gives you the authority that is necessary, that there are an 

awful lot of us who weren’t here to participate in that debate and 

who would like the opportunity, on behalf of our constituents, to 

engage in a debate about the type of force that should be used, can 

be used and, in fact, then ultimately, once that determination is 

made, to authorize it on behalf of Americans today for this purpose. 

So I hope that we have that opportunity and I think that is something that the administration should want and should request. 

Just shifting topics for a second. You were quoted in the press 

this week as saying that we are leaving channels of communication 

open with Iran. And I would like you to explain what exactly we 

are communicating to Iran, how much we know about Iran’s support for the Shiite militias, whether Iranian forces are on the 

ground in Iraq and, finally, we are reminded that Iran continues 

to be the largest state sponsor of terrorism in the world; and that 

Iran with a nuclear weapon would not only empower its terrorist 

allies, like the Assad regime and Hezbollah, but it would spark an 

arm’s race throughout the region that would be so damaging as extremist groups are marching throughout the Middle East. 

So given that there is less than 2 months from the November 

24th deadline for nuclear negotiations, if you could provide us with 

necessary assurances that our shared goal of destroying ISIL won’t 

be used by Iran as a pretense for extending negotiations or for 

pressing the administration and our partners in those negotiations 

to accept anything less than an Iran that does not pose a threat 

in the region and to the world. 

Secretary KERRY. Let me state unequivocally, there is no connection, relationship, dependency between what we are currently 

about to be engaged in with respect to this, you know, so called 

ISIL and these talks. And there is a real discipline on both sides 

with respect to the focus on the talks. 

Now, everybody knows because we announced on the margins of 

the P5+1 talks that there was some inquiry about ISIL and the position of Iran and so forth. Iran is very opposed to ISIL, and it 

would be illogical, it would be almost diplomatic malpractice not to 

inquire, what their attitude is or what their attitude is about our 

engagement or whatever. That doesn’t mean we are cooperating. 

We are not cooperating. There is no joint effort, but I think it is 

important. Diplomacy is communication, and mistakes are avoided 

by communicating. 

So there is no coordination, there is no change in our attitude, 

there is no shift in policy, there is no linkage. But, yes, there has 

37

been and we are open to anything that could help to solve this 

problem, we will listen to——

Chairman ROYCE. Judge Ted Poe——

Secretary KERRY [continuing]. Without compromising our values 

and our interests. 

Chairman ROYCE. We go to Judge Ted Poe of Texas, chairman 

of the Subcommittee on Terrorism, Nonproliferation, and Trade. 

Mr. POE. Thank you, Mr. Secretary, for being here. 

The United States has made a commitment to protect ethnic and 

religious minorities who have been subject to ISIS in Iraq. The unarmed residents of Camp Liberty have been attacked, as you know, 

seven times, resulting in the murder of 100 residents, wounding 

1,000 others. 

Myself and 26 other Members of Congress have sent you a letter, 

asking you specifically what now will be done to protect those 

members of Camp Liberty. I would like for you to respond to the 

letter in writing as opposed to this hearing today. 

So I would like to move on to specifically what we are talking 

about with ISIS. The way I understand it, the United States’ plan 

is to arm the people in Syria that have been vetted with the intent 

of, I suspect, defeating ISIS in Syria and, also, a strategy to defeat 

ISIS in Iraq at the same time. 

I’m concerned about that, because we armed the rebels or the opposition in Libya; and now that hasn’t turned out so well. Libya, 

to me, is a failed state. I have a series of questions. 

You have made it clear that this is not Islamic philosophy. Tell 

me and the American people exactly who we are at war with. What 

would you call—I call them ISIS, Islamic State of Iraq and Syria. 

What would you tell the American people? Okay, we are doing 

this support, we are at war, we are counterterrorism operation, 

whatever you want to call it. Who is the enemy? Define the enemy 

for me. What would you call them? 

Secretary KERRY. Well, Congressman, let me say very quickly, I 

share your concern. The administration shares your concern about 

the Mujahedin-e Khalq who have been too long in Camp Liberty, 

and we recognize that. We have been able to work to get 384 residents out of there. 

Mr. POE. Excuse me, Mr. Secretary. I would like you to respond 

to that question in writing because of the time limit. 

Secretary KERRY. Okay. Fine. 

Mr. POE. You just go ahead and answer the question: Who are 

we at war with? I call them ISIS. Who would you call these? 

Secretary KERRY. Well, I call them the enemy of Islam, because 

that is what, I think, they are. And they certainly don’t represent 

a state, even though they try to claim to. 

Mr. POE. So officially we should refer to them as the enemy of 

Islam. 

Secretary KERRY. Well, I do. 

Mr. POE. Okay. 

Secretary KERRY. I don’t know if there is an official whatever. 

Mr. POE. Well, why don’t we tell the American people——

Secretary KERRY. I hope you join me in doing that, because that 

is what I think they are; and I don’t think they deserve to have 

a reference in their name that gives them legitimacy. 

38

Mr. POE. Are they the enemy of the United States? 

Secretary KERRY. Beg your pardon? 

Mr. POE. Are they the enemy of the United States? 

Secretary KERRY. They are an enemy of humanity. 

Mr. POE. So they are an enemy of the U.S., too? 

Secretary KERRY. Among others. 

Mr. POE. Okay. 

Secretary KERRY. Among many others——

Mr. POE. Well, I am just looking specifically at the national security interest of the United States. 

Secretary KERRY. Definitively, it is in the national security interest of our country, with Americans over there with passports, 

learning how to fight and taking part in this——

Mr. POE. And I agree with you, they shouldn’t come back unless 

they are in handcuffs. I agree with that. 

Secretary KERRY. For all those reasons, yes. 

Mr. POE. What is the long-term strategy? Is it to defeat this 

group, ISIS, if you don’t mind me calling them that? 

Secretary KERRY. Yes. Yes, it is. You know, this is my best entreaty to call them something but that is all right. 

Mr. POE. All right. But that is the long-term goal of the United 

States——

Secretary KERRY. The long-term goal is to end their capacity to 

engage in acts of terror and terrorize to be a threat to the United 

States and others and to destabilize the region. 

Mr. POE. Do you suspect that this—as long as it takes, is that 

really the position of the United States? However long it takes, we 

are going to defeat this group? 

Secretary KERRY. Well, the answer is, if your goal is to defeat 

them, you better be prepared to do it however long it takes. But 

that doesn’t mean it is going to have to take forever. And I think 

if we put together the right coalition, if we all join together and 

support the right strategy and do the right things and follow 

through, I am confident that we can defeat ISIL. 

Mr. POE. By any means necessary we are going to defeat them, 

or are we just going to defeat them with certain strategies——

Secretary KERRY. Well, we have a strategy, and we think it can 

work. And we have other options within that strategy, if the first 

steps don’t. 

Mr. POE. But if the Syrian rebels aren’t successful in defeating 

them on their own, we have contingency plans to follow up? 

Secretary KERRY. There are other options. We are not making 

those plans right now because we plan to defeat them the way we 

are going. 

Chairman ROYCE. We are going to go to Mr. Brian Higgins of 

New York. 

Mr. HIGGINS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Secretary, thank you for your extraordinary work on behalf 

of America. 

You had indicated you characterize the Free Syrian Army as secular and moderate at the beginning of your statement. And although that certainly characterizes it as part of the story, I think 

there is a lot more to tell with respect to this organization. 

39

It is between 40,000 and 50,000 fighters. Their worst fighters, by 

most accounts, are those that secular and moderate. Their best 

fighters are Islamic extremists and al-Qaeda affiliates. They are 

not unified. They lack an effective command structure. They have 

no political center. 

And the problem is, when you have 1,000 militias and no political center, there are only sides to pick. So I would have some concerns about our reliance on the Free Syrian Army to provide the 

ground troops strength to help us succeed in this mission. 

Obviously, we can’t depend on the Iraqi army. The United States spent $25 billion to train and build a new army. The troop strength 

of the Iraqi army was estimated to be 250,000. And when ISIS 

moved on them, they ran. 

So my question is: You know, the Kurdish military up in 

Kurdistan, the Peshmerga, is estimated to be anywhere between 80 

and 190,000 fighters. They are regarded as pro-American. They are 

well equipped and well trained and experienced. They are reliable 

allies, as they assisted us in apprehending a Bin Laden ally in 

2003. There is a stable political situation in Kurdistan. They recognize minority rights. 

Are we partnering with the right organization in that part of the 

world to achieve our objectives? And why wouldn’t we try to engage, to a greater degree, the Peshmerga, given their history of reliance? So I would ask you that question. 

Secretary KERRY. Well, let me begin. A very good question, Congressman. I just begin by saying to you that the numbers that you 

put out with respect to the size of the opposition, we don’t agree 

that those are the limit of the numbers, particularly when you include the more Islamic of those fighters and, particularly, when you 

include some of the bad guys in that grouping. We don’t include 

those. 

When I tell you there are tens of thousands, I am not including 

al-Nusra and people that we are not going to have anything to do 

with and that we don’t agree with, obviously. So our numbers are 

a little bit different from where you begin. 

Secondly, we are not relying, obviously, exclusively, on them. We 

are working with the Kurds. That is why you saw such a massive 

amount of support going into the Kurds, with the permission of the 

Government of Baghdad; and that is why they sort of bypassed and 

we went directly to them with their permission. 

So I think you need to recognize what is already happening. The 

Kurds indeed can be a critical partner in this effort. 

Mr. HIGGINS. Yield back. 

Chairman ROYCE. We go now to Matt Salmon of Arizona. 

Mr. SALMON. Thank you, Mr. Secretary, for coming to speak to 

this committee about this administration’s plan to defeat ISIS. 

I do believe that it is unfortunate you couldn’t come and answer 

our questions in advance of the House voting on the very issue; but 

I am pleased that, at least, we could get some of these questions 

answered today. 

My first question is: Just 5 weeks ago, the President said it was 

a fantasy that the Free Syrian Army could take up arms and lead 

the fight. Now, they are a cornerstone of our strategy to defeat 

ISIS. 

40

What has changed to make the Free Syrian Army now a credible 

partner where before the President considered them a punch line? 

Secretary KERRY. Well, what the President said, actually, that 

comment was made way back when. It came out recently; he was 

referring, when he made the comment, which was made way back 

when, he was referring back to the time originally when, in the last 

administration, people were talking in the very beginning about 

whether or not they should be armed and so forth. And he, as you 

know, had reservations about that at that time. And the reason is 

that, at that time, there was not the sense of structure and capacity and definition that there is today. 

So there has been a long road between what the President actually applied those comments to and what we are looking at today. 

We now have tens of thousands of people who are, by the way, the 

principal bulwark against ISIL in Syria today. They are the ones 

who drove them out of Idlib province. They are the ones who are 

taking them on in the Damascus suburbs. They are the ones who 

are fighting in Aleppo. 

So what has happened is, over time, a lot of people came to this 

fight, a lot of people gained experience. Some went off and joined 

the most radical groups, and you know, we are not working with 

them. But a lot of them chose to be part of the Free Syrian Army 

and to stay away from the more extreme and violent strain. 

So, yeah, it is complicated. There are divisions. You have to understand, the principal behind all these people coming to Syria is 

Assad. Assad is the magnet that is drawing all of these foreign 

fighters there. 

Mr. SALMON. And he is their top priority. I understand that. 

I just have one other question, and I am going to finish early and 

let somebody have a chance. But there have been allegations that 

the so-called moderates over in the region are the ones that sold 

our reporters to ISIL to have their heads cut off. Is there any intelligence that supports that? 

Secretary KERRY. Actually, there is intelligence that refutes it. 

That is an ISIL disinformation claim. And in fact, that never happened. It is, as I said, it is false information that was put out by 

ISIL itself. 

Mr. SALMON. Thank you. 

I will yield back. 

Chairman ROYCE. Thank you. 

We will go to Karen Bass of California, ranking member of the 

Africa Subcommittee. 

Ms. BASS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Like my colleague, Representative Meeks, I also took a very difficult vote last night and voted for the amendment because I didn’t 

see another alternative. 

Some people that are unhappy with my vote believe that there 

is another approach and another strategy other than air strikes 

and arming the rebels. So I thought I would ask you two quick 

questions. Why isn’t there a diplomatic or a political approach or 

strategy to address ISIL? And then what are the lessons learned 

from the NATO intervention in Libya? And how are the lessons 

being applied to today? 

Thank you. 

41

Secretary KERRY. Well, first of all, the United States of America 

has a firm policy, which I believe is the right policy, that we don’t 

negotiate with terrorists. And I can’t think of a group that is more 

defining of modern day terrorism than this group. 

Secondly, there is nothing that they want that you can negotiate 

about. They have decreed a caliphate, their life philosophy and pursuit at this moment is marauding, buying young women, selling 

them, raping people, killing them. Anybody who isn’t them, you can 

be killed. They are avowed genocidists, and they went after whole 

groups of people defined only by not being them. 

If you were Yazidi, you would get killed; Shia, you would get 

killed; if you are Christian, you get killed. And they have made it 

clear. There is nothing to negotiate about, either you join Islam or 

you die. What is the negotiation? 

So that is pretty straightforward stuff. 

Ms. BASS. And the other question about the lessons learned from 

NATO intervention in Libya and how——

Secretary KERRY. Well the lesson learned from NATO was it was 

absolutely the right—the President made the right decision to intervene because of what was going to happen in Benghazi. Regrettably, and the President would be the first to tell you this, in all 

countries that we are engaged and by the way, you know, certain 

countries had taken the lead on that, as you know, with respect to 

kinetic activity. 

We agreed to support and be supportive. And certain folks were 

tasked with the follow-up afterwards. The President would be the 

first to tell you that all Nations were insufficiently focused on the 

follow-up. 

And that is the biggest lesson of all. You cannot leave a vacuum. 

You have got to come in with sufficient capacity. And I don’t think 

there was sufficient follow-up in Libya. And everybody would say 

that. 

Ms. BASS. Mr. Chairman, I yield my time. 

Chairman ROYCE. Okay. Well, we want to thank the Secretary 

for his time today. 

We have covered a lot of ground about the ISIL threat, both in 

terms of security and in terms of their threat to humanity. We are 

going to cover more in the weeks to come. And we will also want 

to continue to be in touch on other important issues in Iraq. 

Mr. Secretary, like the safety of those at Camp Ashraf. Many 

have lost their lives. We want to make certain as we continue this 

dialogue that the State Department takes concerted steps here in 

order to protect their security. 

For now we stand adjourned. I thank the members. The vote is 

on on the House floor. 

Secretary KERRY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman ROYCE. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. 

[Whereupon, at 1:33 p.m., the committee was adjourned.] 

(43)

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

44

f


89814n.eps
45


89814m-1.eps
46

f


89814m-2.eps
47

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY THE HONORABLE ELIOT L. ENGEL, A

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK

f


89814b.eps
48


89814c-1.eps
49

f


89814c-2.eps
50

Æ


89814d.eps